Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +3

[ProstheticConscience]

I think I am getting addicted to your postscripts.

There was an old review site (sold and gone now) that used to do that and I miss it. I remember the one from Apocalypto:

This is way better than the Bellagio!

 

[Chili]

Limelight - 1952

Chaplin's last film in Hollywood. An aging clown in early 20th century England (Calvero, the tramp comedian) and a young dancer.

A real Chaplin family film (wife, kids, half brother all appear in the movie) and the story is somewhat autobiographical, reflecting on his life.

Long, artistic film. Highlight seeing Buster Keaton and Chaplin share the screen.

'Time is the best author...it always writes the perfect ending'.

CC's birthday today.

 

[Osprey]

The Big Parade (1925) - 9/10 (Really loved it)

In 1917, after America's entrance into The Great War, a son of wealthy parents enlists in the Army, makes a few friends, falls in love with a French girl and experiences the horrors of war. This Hollywood epic from director King Vidor balances drama, romance and comedy, was the second most successful film of the silent era (including being MGM's biggest hit for 14 years, until Gone With the Wind) and greatly influenced war films to come.

It opens with patriotic enthusiasm as American boys "parade" to war and then moves to France, where our protagonist Jim becomes buddies with a couple of other soldiers and, eventually, begins a playful romance with a local girl, despite the language barrier. It flirts with being a comedy through much of this section because it's lighthearted and funny. Shortly after the midway mark, however, things get serious very quickly and it becomes a full-blown war film that's both exhilarating and grim. At 2.5 hours, the film is quite long, but I think that it's warranted because all of the character development and establishment of a lighthearted tone in the first half makes the second half all the more emotionally powerful. It takes a long while to get to, but the battle scenes in that second half are worth the wait. I was impressed by the few scenes with real biplanes and then blown away during the climactic battle scene as hundreds of men march across a wasteland while literally half a dozen shells per second explode around it. It's a really impressive portrayal of war, especially for a silent film.

If there's a downside (besides the length, though I was OK with it), it's that much of the film might feel familiar because it likely influenced a lot of later films. For example, there's a foxhole scene that's highly reminiscent of All Quiet on the Western Front (which wouldn't be written and filmed until several years later), the two buddies (one named "Bull" and the other "Slim") are character types that seem like they're in a lot of later war films and a couple of the romantic scenes are somewhat familiar because they've been copied countless times. Such things make it feel cliched and melodramatic in typical Hollywood style, but I think that it helps to remember that this was made in 1925 and likely had a lot to do with creating those cliches and popularizing that style.

Anyways, though it's long and may not pack quite the same punch after 95 years (whoa), I still loved it and even got a little emotional at the end. In fact, it slowly dawned on me while watching it that I saw it decades ago in a high school history class. It was neat to uncover that buried memory and realize that I watched arguably one of the greatest war films as a teenager and didn't know or appreciate that until now.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

with...people. Mostly. Also Rihanna.

Wannabe sci-fi epic by the guy who did The Fifth Element. We open with a montage of the International Space Station welcoming nation after nation, then aliens get in on the act. 400 years later, it's a huge "city of the thousand planets" that got kicked out of low Earth orbit because it got too big, and serves as a setting for whatever atmosphere the plot requires. We meet Valerian and Laureline, kick-ass space secret agents or something despite being obnoxious early twenty-something snots you'd sooner punch in the face than talk to. An alien planet's been wiped out, its people scattered, but magic phlebotonium excreted by a cute CGI alien hamster just might save them. But standing in the way is evil Clive Owen and his retinue of intimidating shooty bots nobody else can command...surely they won't turn on anyone heroic. Surely!

On one hand, visually impressive, but you quickly realize how ordinary that is these days without characters you care at all about. Tonal shifts are all over the place. The movie can't figure out if it's supposed to be a light-hearted romp or hard sci-fi, but the worst thing about it is the two leads. I hate them. I want them to die. The girl in particular (Cara Delevingne) turns in a Razzie-caliber performance. It's not necessarily her fault; she's either an ass-kicking soldier or helpless damsel in distress depending on plot requirements which leads me to believe the powers that made the film might be more responsible. The guns and armour they pack also suffer from the same affliction; alternately deadly or useless depending on what's going on. The guy can't figure out whether he's trying to stop conspiracies or convince the girl to marry him. We whip through various settings and bump up against alien baddies, and lots of human good guy allies die without anyone so much as batting an eyelash.

It's based on a French comic series and bringing it to the big screen was supposedly a passion project of Luc Besson, but wow did he ever miss whatever he was going for. It's like someone doing a gritty modern reboot of Asterix. Yeah, no.

"I don't see any aliens! I just see a big wall painted green!" "Keep looking...!"

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Shoot Ze Piano Player (1960) - 7/10

I've seen 7 films directed by Truffaut, The 400 Blows strangely continues to be the worse one. This one is a bit mixed but I really liked the internal monologues from the 'piano player'. A lot of truths you don't see in a modern film.

 

[Osprey]

ProstheticConscience seems to be having so much fun that I'm going to give his style of review a try for a change...


Danger Close

with... lots of Aussies that you've never heard of... and that guy from Vikings.

It's a 2019 movie about the Vietnam War with a twist: all of the good guys sound like Crocodile Dundee. In the Australian tradition of reminding the world that they participated in our favorite wars, too, comes a movie about the Battle of Long Tan, which most of us have probably never heard of because we're not Aussies (and many Aussies probably haven't, either). It was a battle in which 100 Australian (and New Zealand, though good luck telling them apart) soldiers were pinned down by a North Vietnamese force of over 2000. Travis Fimmel (sporting a much more sensible haircut than on Vikings) stars as a company major who thinks that he's hot stuff and should be in special forces, not babysitting 20-year-olds (which, coincidentally, is how I feel when I play online shooters). He soon gets tasked with relieving another company, but gets pinned down, himself. Oops. He may also be responsible for wiping out a friendly platoon. Double oops. The actors in this might spend more time on their bellies than on their feet. There's a little bit of characterization and development, but not a whole lot because that stuff slows down the action and this is a very action-heavy film. In fact, the last 3/4ths is all battle, with lots of gun and artillery fire. Unlike a lot of American movies about the war, there's no preaching. It's simply a movie about the battle with the intent (made clear in the postscripts) to honor the men who fought and died in it. There's nothing special about it (aside from the "breaking the American monopoly on Vietnam War movies" angle) and it's very run-of-the-mill for a war movie, but it's decent and suitable if you're in the mood for a modern one with a lot of action.

"HQ, there must be a mistake. We came here to help out the Yanks, but I haven't seen a single one."

 

[nameless1]

Shoot Ze Piano Player (1960) - 7/10

I've seen 7 films directed by Truffaut, The 400 Blows strangely continues to be the worse one. This one is a bit mixed but I really liked the internal monologues from the 'piano player'. A lot of truths you don't see in a modern film.

To be fair, The 400 Blows was his debut work. There tends to be some weaknesses as it is part of the learning process, but that burst of creativity cannot always be replicated in the latter, more polished works.

I have the same issue with Scorsese's Mean Streets. I know a lot of people like it, and while I do see the potential, it looks so amateurish and rough, that I am just completely turned off by it.

 

[Osprey]

Ben-Hur (1925) - 9/10 (Really loved it)

A Jewish prince (Ramon Navarro) plots revenge against the Roman soldier responsible for sending him to the galleys and his mother and sister to the dungeons. This epic was the most expensive film of the silent era and it shows. So many shots and sequences are simply breathtaking. The sets are huge, the extras number in the thousands per scene, the action sequences look (and were) highly dangerous and many shots and effects leave you wondering how they did them. The two standout sequences are the ship battle and, of course, the chariot race. The former is very impressive, with its full-size galleys ramming into each other, but the latter blew me away by how nuts it was for 1925 and technically similar to the 1959 version's chariot race. It's shot and edited almost exactly the same, but 34 years earlier. It has to be up there with the Odessa Steps sequence in Battleship Potemkin as the two most impressive and influential action scenes of the silent era. The rest of the film isn't as exciting, naturally, but still quite enjoyable and easy to follow. It wasn't quite as emotionally impactful as it might've been, but that's surely only because I was so familiar with the story. In fact, I was really struck by how similar the film is to William Wyler's 1959 remake (or, I suppose, that it's the other way around, but most people today will have seen the remake first). The story, themes, characters, locations, action sequences and even many of the shots are the same. Usually, a remake will change so many things that are outdated or could be done better, so I think that it's a testament to how excellent everything is about this 1925 version that, even 34 years later, the remake hardly changed a thing (and still won a record-breaking 11 Oscars). Anyways, this is a silent era spectacle that really holds up well, IMO, even 95 years later and compared with its Oscar-sweeping remake.

 

[Babe Ruth]

Super (2010)

This isn't The Super, with Joe Pesci, which was good. This is 'Super', (with Dwight from the Office) which sucked. Story about a downtrodden, disrespected husband turned costumed vigilante. His wife takes off w/a drug dealing Kevin Bacon, so Dwight puts on a Flash-like costume and fights petty crimes around the city. My opinion, stupid and gory. Watching it, I never really cared about his quest to get back his indifferent wife, or eradicate crime, get petty revenge(s) etc. No real good guys in it, movie was grim & pointless. Strange scenes depicting his ocassional hallucinations.. It was disappointing bcuz I like Rainn Wilson & Michael Rooker (played one of Bacon's henchmen).

 

[kmart]

le grand bleu/the big blue

2-3/5 its to much 80s for me and i expected a stronger rivaly between the main characters or a stronger love story then... not something in between. in addition the german translation i had to watch sucked big time.

as i am watching luc besson movies in this virus outbreak(i think this director is a sicko) sometimes the scenes get uncomfortable thinking about the matilda/leon relationship in "leon"... or how gary oldman chucks his pills.

next in the pipeline is angel-a... i wonder how this one will go

 

[hoglund]

Hachi on Netflix, it's a movie about a very loyal dog and 4 stars. I recommend this to all animal lovers.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Deconstructing Harry (1997) - 6.5/10

It's too self-pitying and neurotic on Allen's part to fully enjoy. The gimmicks in other parts were too disjointed to work. It's one of those movies that has a lot of good scenes but you have to put up with a tonne of dumb ones. I think Allen's better off just getting normal-ish people to act somewhat normal in his movies like in Hannah and Her Sisters, his characters started getting too wild in the 90s. Also severe under-utilization of Julia Louis-Dreyfus here.

 

[Savi]

Endings, Beginnings

plot isn't anything special, also cast is pretty meh, but for some reason I just love everything Drake Doremus makes; I've seen every movie he directed and while there really aren't any masterpieces in there I've yet to see something from the man that I don't like

most of his movies get pretty bad ratings as well but I love his dreamy, almost depressing style

 

[Osprey]

Ben-Hur (2016) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

This was everything that I expected it to be: disappointing and irritating. It's not a good sign when it opens with a preview of the chariot race. That said, it follows that with a better job of building the friendship between Judah and Messala than either of the other two film adaptations did. Unfortunately, it really falls apart after that as the story unnecessarily diverts from those adaptations and the novel, starting with the reason for Judah's arrest. The galley battle at sea that follows is especially weak and inferior compared to the 1925 and 1959 versions. The movie then completely eliminates Judah's saving of and adoption by the Roman commander Arrius, and, thus, the whole parallelism of Judah becoming "Roman," like Messala, and eventually making the choice to give that up to return to representing his people, an arc that's very important to the story. Instead, he goes directly to working for Ilderim (Morgan Freeman) and then to the chariot race, which relies on so much CGI that it looks completely fake. Once again, adaptations that are 91 and 57 years older did the scene much better. Finally, it ends on an incredibly sappy and implausible note that makes the previous adaptations and novel seem realistic. On top of that, the side story about Jesus feels like it was just tacked on and eschews one of the more magical aspects of the first two versions by, this time, showing Jesus' face and having him speak. The movie is just a mess. Unlike the 1925 version, which changed very little from the novel, and the 1959 version, which changed very little from the 1925 version, this version changed a lot and nearly every change was for the worse. They took one of the most epic stories and boiled it down to a 2-hour action movie... with action that's unsatisfying and executed worse than early Hollywood managed. Perhaps this would appeal to those who haven't seen any version of Ben-Hur, don't care about how well the story could be told and just want an action movie that fits under 2 hours, but everyone else should just stick to the original adaptations.

 

[kihei]

Ashes of Time Redux (2008) Directed by Wong Kar-wai 7C

Ashes of Time Redux is a slightly fiddled with re-invisioning of Wong's 1994 film Ashes of Time, a famously difficult shoot, the final cut of which the director wasn't satisfied. Not much has changed other than the seasonal progression of events is emphasized more in the revision than in the original. For a movie in which one only has to keep track of about a half dozen characters, the narrative remains frustratingly confusing. The wuxia genre film is narrated by an assassin who has seen better days and now only fights reluctantly, often preferring to be an agent to other assassins who are better suited to particular tasks than he is. There are several different stories, all dealing with relationships of the heart in one way or another, that take place in this movie, but the links between them are fuzzy, rather than discrete. Most remain difficult to follow, except for general themes. For some of us, this isn't a deal breaker though it does limit how high the film can soar. The action genre wuxia, with its focus on ancient intrigue and swordplay, here is used by Wong in a very unconventional way to emphasize his usual modern interests: memory and regret; time and change; desire and disappointment. While by no means a perfect fit, the end result is if nothing else visually compelling and, far more important, emotionally coherent. In addition, Ashes of Time Redux is among the most beautiful movies I have seen. Its narrative progression is slow and sensual--it doesn't progress so much as it seductively slithers from scene to scene. Wong, the greatest master of romantic melancholy in the history of cinema, can get an incredible array of intimate emotions expressed from destructive passion to lubricious surrender and everything in between. If you can accept the flawed narrative approach and are interested in exploring the vagaries of memory and the blessings of forgetfulness, Ashes of Time Redux might just have a great deal to offer.

subtitles

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Super (2010)

This isn't The Super, with Joe Pesci, which was good. This is 'Super', (with Dwight from the Office) which sucked. Story about a downtrodden, disrespected husband turned costumed vigilante.

Surprisingly dark movie. When I saw it a was expecting more of a black comedy, but it definitely has some legitimately dark moments.

(and for anyone wondering, yes, I think there's a valuable distinction between "black" and "dark" comedy for me. IMO, A black comedy is a movie with what should be a serious subject matter, but maintains an overall easy tone throughout (e.g. Get Shorty, or even Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). A dark comedy is a movie with a decent amount of laughs but also some extremely heavy tonal moments).

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Extreme Job (2019) - 6/10
Funny little film involving a team of bad (at their job) cops staking out a criminal location within a fried chicken restaurant.

Midsommar (2019) - 6/10
A slow burning look into a Swedish cult and its dependency on hallucinogenics. So dumb, but the presentation is borderline flawless.

 

[Osprey]

Underwater (2020) - 6/10 (Liked it)

An earthquake forces a crew of researchers to abandon their crippled lab miles beneath the ocean surface and try to make it to the escape pods. I expected not to like this and was somewhat pleasantly surprised. The movie wastes no time on introducing us to the characters. In fact, Kristen Stewart's character is the only one that we even see (and all that she's doing is brushing her teeth) before the earthquake hits and the choas starts. The visuals are very nice from start to finish, with lots of damaged sets and underwater CGI. I liked the direction and the acting is pretty decent, even from Kristen Stewart (believe it or not), though I was more impressed by Jessica Henwick as the perpetually nervous researcher. Vincent Cassel (currently playing Serac on Westworld Season 3) plays the captain and T.J. Miller is the comic relief. Unfortunately, the plot is predictable and unoriginal. If you've seen The Abyss, DeepStar Six and Leviathan, you've practically seen Underwater. What it does do, though, is offer more modern and impressive visuals and effects and more sustained suspense and action. If that's all that you're looking for (or you expect even less, as I did), then it'll probably fill the bill for movie night. It's forgettable, but not regrettable.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Hot Rod

with Andy Samberg, Bill Hader, Ian McShane, Sissy Spacek, and...everybody.

Andy Samberg is Rod, wannabe daredevil and living embodiment of the glorious 70's and 80's. Wherever he goes his homemade cape flaps in the wind, his mop of brown curls flaps heroically, and soft metal power ballads are heard wafting on the breeze. He's got a crew of guys he hangs out with who build ramps he can (not) jump over with his moped, film the exploits, and chug Budweisers with. He lives to beat his horrible stepfather in a fight...until said stepfather needs a heart transplant. Then he sets out to raise money for the operation to keep his stepdad alive long enough to kick his ass by doing actual stunts...but wait. Was his long-dead dad really a famous daredevil stuntman? And is it realistic to jump 15 school buses on as moped with zero actual experience? Will the local AM radio station provide enough promotion to secure the necessary funding? Is that really a sentence I just typed? Yes. Yes it was.

Totally bizarre non-budget romp with various Saturday Night Live alums from a decade and a half ago that by some utterly bizarre quirk of fate was filmed entirely within about ten blocks of where I live. The whole time my wife and I were picking out local landmarks...and we're not exactly in a big centre of cinema. Sure, lots of stuff is filmed in Vancouver, but not bloody much is filmed at the 50's Burger Bar on Edmonds like three blocks away from where I first moved in with my wife. Or the park just down the hill. Or the front entrance of the high school my daughter graduated from in 2011. Or the...well, you get the idea. Ever see Brooklyn Nine-nine? Imagine Andy Samberg's character stuck at the level of a 13 year-old who never got over an early obsession with Evel Knevel and lorded over his cadre of friends playing Napoleon Dynamite in your local neighbourhood and you'll have it.

It's like Stranger Things but a parody.

Funny, but funnier if you know that the guy who did the voice of Cyril Figgis had an argument with Jake Peralta five feet away from where your future brother in-law once puked his guts out after eating bad shrooms and spent a half hour trying to intimidate you for dating his sister before forgetting your name, wandering off and passing out in a ditch.

On Netflix now.

That ditch is seriously about a hundred feet away across his left shoulder. I kid you not.

 

[OzzyFan]

Disneynature: Elephant
2.50 out of 4stars

As usual with these disney nature documentaries, kid targeted and beautifully filmed look at elephants. Elephants are one of the more intriguing land animals imo (the largest land animal, very intelligent with great memory, use tools, docile, 30 beats per minute heart rate, only sleep 4hours a night, supposedly emotionally expressive, etc).

Underwater and Hot Rod were 2 movies that both exceeded my expecations, for the record.

 

[Chili]

Quiz Show - 1994

Based on an early television quiz show scandal. Interesting to see Martin Scorsese as an actor(who is convincing in his role). Well told period piece.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The Invitation (2015) - Okay, but ultimately forgettable. Not great acting but I thought the approach was a little bit more realistic with the characters fate/how fast things shake out.

Mulholland Drive (2001) - I had disliked it many, many years ago. I frankly can't remember why. Maybe I struggled a little more with unconventional plots as a teenager but I had always been interesting in art films and literature so I like to think I still should have been better equipped to watch it. Now, I watched it twice in the past 3 days. Once alone and once with my wife. It's a masterpiece and the best thing Lynch has ever done. I use to think it was Blue Velvet, but I think Mulholland Drive is a much, much stronger film. His best mystery work intertwined with a passionate love story that leaves the viewer with more questions than answers, which is how I like transgressive movies. Filled with graceful trails of breadcrumbs and potential non sequiturs that play particularly well on the idea of dreams or parallel universes (and for all the theories about the film, I've never perceived Lynch as such a philosopher/intellectual/overly concerned with complex plot that the story itself is complicated, it's the presentation of its development and collapse that is highly creative, beautiful and rewarding). All actors give perfect performances besides the odd weak moment by Justin Theroux in his first appearance. Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring are the natural standouts, with the former switching gears completely effortlessly whenever a change in demeanor is required of her, whether it's in the first 80% of the film or the last 20%. I could spend hours looking at the constructed sets and Lynch makes it work visually at all moments with a relatively small budget of 4 millions. Makes you wonder what studios see in hacks who can't even come close to doing what he does with ten, twenty times that budget. He puts other visual artists to shame. I was hooked by the first frame. Mpst of the oddball stuff is presented rather demurely and never feels like a crutch, which I think something like Twin Peaks is sometimes guilty of. The pinnacle of David Lynch's career. An A+ film.

Favorite films by US directors, off the top of my head, not in order:

Buffalo '66 by Vincent Gallo (1998)
Mulholland Drive by David Lynch (2001)
Lolita by Stanley Kubrick (1962)
The Killing of a Chinese Bookie by John Cassavetes (1976)
The King of Comedy by Martin Scorcese (1982)
Before Sunset by Richard Linklater (2004)
The Lighthouse by Robert Eggers (2019)
Bad Lieutenant by Abel Ferrara (1992)
12 Angry Men by Sidney Lumet (1957)
Miller's Crossing by The Coen Brothers (1990)
Somewhere by Sofia Coppola (2010)
Killer of Sheep by Charles Burnett (1978)
Zelig by Woody Allen (1983)


I kept it at one film per director for no particular reason. I guess I simply didn't want to see the same name twice. I could also be forgetting stuff. I struggled with a couple of different Coen Brothers films. No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski, The Man Who Wasn't There and Blood Simple were also considered. 2001 and Full Metal Jacket for Kubrick. A Woman Under the Influence for Cassavetes and Raging Bull for Scorcese.

 

[nameless1]

I like that list. It includes every genre, showcases some of the least-known but equally important directors from different spheres of the industry, and the film choices highlight some of the lesser known works of certain directors.

I personally dislike The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, because of the weak script and obvious plot holes, but it can also be argued as the purest Cassavetes work too, as his style is fully realized. His latter works are often too polished, and feel closer to the mainstream.

 

[Ainec]

^ one of the best films of all time (Mulholland Drive)

 

[kihei]

Vladimir and Rosa (1971) Directed by Groupe Dziga Vertov (Jean Luc Godard and Jean Pierre Gorin, uncreditied) 3D

The Groupe Dziga Vertov (named after the director of Man with a Movie Camera, 1929) was a brainchild of New Wave genius film director Jean Luc Godard. By the late '60s he had developed a radical attraction to Maoist and Leninist politics and decided to collaborate with like-minded artists, critics and social philosophers. He made 14 films in a four year period between 1968 to 1972, five of them with writer/director Jean Pierre Gorin. Although the intent was to present political themes with a Maoist/Leninist slant to the workers of the world while thumbing his nose at bourgeoisie film making, Godard created movies that appealed to virtually no one except for a few ideologues. I've seen two films from this period, an erratic Rolling Stones documentary One Plus One (aka Sympathy for the Devil) and a Jane Fonda vehicle Tout Va Bien which I don't remember at all. Though Godard is my favourite film director after India's Satyajit Ray, I wasn't looking forward to seeing any more works from this period. However Vladimir and Rosa became available on MUBI, a great movie site from the British Film Institute that screens mostly obscure or rediscovered international films and that these days is really the only game in town. Vladimir and Rosa is a very loose, low budget gloss over of the Chicago Eight trial that took place after the police riots that occurred during the 1968 Democratic Convention in that city. The "Eight" were made up of some of the most visible and/or notorious radicals of the time, including SDS activists, Black Panthers and Marxist protestors. The charges were largely trumped up, the judge was unrepentantly biased and, as a result, the trial got a lot of national and international attention. This movie is by no means a comprehensive or even coherent look at the goings on during the trial. What points its creators have to make are often overstated, cartoonish or doctrinaire; in short, the movie is generally unwatchable except for brief periods. Short collages using graphics sometimes fare well, and there is one inventive scene on a tennis court where two couples are playing mixed doubles, a reminder of Godard's once playful imagination. But really the movie only reinforces the notion that Godard's relatively brief flirtation with Maoist politics represents an excess of self indulgence and was the nadir of his otherwise superlative career. That being said, if someone was really serious about it, there is more than enough in this material for a doctoral thesis or two.

subtitles